EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 37 post(s)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 18984	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:37:00 - [1861] - Quote Dalilus wrote: I see nullsec is getting another buff, as expected. Any plans to unerf high-sec? Maybe add Concord LP per every rat killed? GÇ£AnotherGÇ¥? What other buffs are you referring to, and how was it expected that they decided to nerf income even more (because that's still what they're doing)? Also, when was highsec nerfed in such a way that it now needs GÇ£un-nerfingGÇ¥? CCP SoniClover wrote: 1) The ISK adjustments are the same as before. Without an ESS you'll get 95% value, with an ESS you get 80% directly and 20-25% are accessible through the ESS. GÇªand the question remains the same as before: why are you introducing this nerf to all of null when every statement from your side says that no such nerf is needed? Again, if it's there to give the ESS a reason to exist GÇö to make it worth-while GÇö all that means is that the ESS has no reason to exist and isn't worth-while to begin with, which means you should adjust the ESS, not arbitrarily punish every rank-and-file nullseccer. Even the previous miscommunication about it being risky to increase nullsec bounties is now completely nullified: the ESS is already self-compensating through the use of LP. If you have to use such heavy-handed tactics to incentivise the use of your new design, it means your design is wrong. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0.
Andrea Keuvo Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 166	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:40:00 - [1862] - Quote Tahnil wrote: Yeah, you're kinda fighting against windmills here. First of all: donGÇÿt you see that itGÇÿs all the more seducing to use this module, the more nullsec alliances are trying to boycott it? Because if nobody BUT ME uses it, the better for me! Cause IGÇÿm earning additional LP now, and you donGÇÿt. Second, the LP payout itself seems to be quite okay. Assuming a nullbear now earns 30m ISK for each hour ratting, after the change the following will happen: NO ESS DEPLOYED Direkt ISK income nerfed to 28.5m ISK. No additional benefits or frills. ESS DEPLOYED Direkt ISK income lowered to 24m ISK. Additional 3,600 to 4,800 LP directly to LP wallet. 6-7.5m ISK go into ESS. Given current navy LP values (c. 800 ISK/LP) this sums up to c. 32.9m to 35.3m, depending on how long the ESS has been deployed and not cashed out. This is a potential buff of 9.7 to 17.7 percent to nullbear income. But most important of all: this ratter will potentially earn 25% more than a ratter who doesn't deploy an ESS. ThatGÇÿs kind of a motivation :D This deployable is still a DOA feature that will not be used even with the changes. Not to mention that it still includes a BS nerf to ratting income that has been proven unnecessary repeatedly in this thread. Let me see if I can make you understand. The PvE content in Eve is so f-ing horrible I can barely be assed to undock my carrier and grind a few sites per day. If you think i'm going to deploy this heap of crap and have to worry about defending it, and then at some point have to go through the pain that is converting LP to items to isk just to avoid losing 5% ratting income you have lost your mind. James Amril-Kesh wrote: Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false? Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic. This + 1000%. I shouldn't have to say this because i'm not the game designer/developer but if you have to implement a penalty to "force" me to use a module then THIS IS BAD DESIGN AND SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. Like seriously, if I was talking to staff at any store I spend money at I'd be asking to talk to a manager by now. What is the option to talk to a manager at CCP when staff are completely ignoring their customers. The fact that dev time is spent on this garbage is beyond upsetting to me as a customer when HED shows that the core of game is fundamentally broken and badly needs to be fixed.
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 1690	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:44:00 - [1863] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false? Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic. that is my question too... is not the 20% risk enough? perhaps a base increase in meta drops could help offset a drop in isk drops? i.e. if you want more isk you have to work for it There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request
Combat Wombatz Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda 12	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:45:00 - [1864] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false? Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic. A thousand times this. The thought process behind the ESS seems dangerously close to Incarna-level foolishness. Andrea Keuvo wrote: This + 1000%. I shouldn't have to say this because i'm not the game designer/developer but if you have to implement a penalty to "force" me to use a module then THIS IS BAD DESIGN AND SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. Like seriously, if I was talking to staff at any store I spend money at I'd be asking to talk to a manager by now. What is the option to talk to a manager at CCP when staff are completely ignoring their customers. The fact that dev time is spent on this garbage is beyond upsetting to me as a customer when HED shows that the core of game is fundamentally broken and badly needs to be fixed. Someone give this man a medal.
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 1690	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:48:00 - [1865] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done? that or make high end annom like incursions. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 1690	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:51:00 - [1866] - Quote Combat Wombatz wrote: James Amril-Kesh wrote: Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false? Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic. A thousand times this. The thought process behind the ESS seems dangerously close to Incarna-level foolishness. Andrea Keuvo wrote: This + 1000%. I shouldn't have to say this because i'm not the game designer/developer but if you have to implement a penalty to "force" me to use a module then THIS IS BAD DESIGN AND SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. Like seriously, if I was talking to staff at any store I spend money at I'd be asking to talk to a manager by now. What is the option to talk to a manager at CCP when staff are completely ignoring their customers. The fact that dev time is spent on this garbage is beyond upsetting to me as a customer when HED shows that the core of game is fundamentally broken and badly needs to be fixed. Someone give this man a medal. its like wrapping a peice of poop in a ribbon and putting colone on it... sure it might look better and smell butter but under it all its still a pile of crap. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request
Omarosas Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans 3	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:52:00 - [1867] - Quote So instead of fixing major issues in the game, big fleet engagements for example, you are adding more junk and nerfing null sec ratting income. Do you really think people will share with the ESS? if you do, then you don't know the average eve player. In the end, the ESS will be banned by alliances to avoid causing drama between their pilots. How can justify your paycheck when all you do is break the game little by little and almost never addressing the problems that already exist.
Jenn aSide STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries 4425	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:53:00 - [1868] - Quote Combat Wombatz wrote: James Amril-Kesh wrote: Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false? Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic. A thousand times this. The thought process behind the ESS seems dangerously close to Incarna-level foolishness. I was initially cheered up when i read about the new changes to the ESS this morning, but as the day went on I realized that the flawed thinking behind the whole thing hasn't changed at all. The ESS (and its accompanying 5% bounty nerf) is still most likely to push PVErs away from null towards activities that are in safer space and pays as much (incursions, l4 missions for the right corps) or better (FW, not that low sec is safer, but when making a few hundred mil worth of LP an hour while losing only a caracal or 2, who gives a damn about safe lol). I fear this will be just another opportunity to tell CCP "I told you so" after the fact.
Regan Rotineque Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd. Mildly Sober 200	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:54:00 - [1869] - Quote It is still overly complicated and adds zero to the overall gameplay. Now you are adding additional mechanics to this and making it even more complex. Adding more code to a broken mechanic does not make it better. I still say this should be shelved and other game mechanics in dire need of coding and reworking be worked on.
Jenn aSide STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries 4426	Posted - 2014.01.21 18:59:00 - [1870] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: James Amril-Kesh wrote: And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done? that or make high end annom like incursions. This is also why there needs to be a review of PVe stuff before adding crap like the ESS. If anomalies weren't so anti-cooperation, a deployable that encourages pvp and is directed at a PVE activity might not be such a bad idea. As it is now with the way bounties work, sharing the same anom with someone else just means less isk all around. That screwed up system is at the heart of why null sec systems can barely support a few people ratting, unlike the incursion rewards system to encourages (demands) grouping up (and logistical support). The current anom system encourages us to rat alone, then here comes the ESS (and it's accompanying 5% bounty nerf) to punish us for ratting alone lol. Yet CCP thinks this means more fights?
Eram Fidard Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 728	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:01:00 - [1871] - Quote CCP Hilmar 05.10.2011 wrote: ...In short, my zeal for pushing EVE to her true potential made me lose sight of doing the simple things right... ...Somewhere along the way, I began taking success for granted. As hubris set in, I became less inclined to listen to pleas for caution. Red flags raised by very smart people both at CCP and in the community went unheeded because of my stubborn refusal to allow adversity to gain purchase on our plans. Mistakes, even when they were acknowledged, often went unanalyzed, leaving the door open for them to be repeated... Captain's Quarters ...We underestimated our development time, set impractical or misleading expectations, and added insult to injury by removing something in which players were emotionally invested... Virtual Goods ...It was another feature that we rushed out the door before it was ready... ...If we donGÇÖt evolve our technology, our game design and our revenue model, then we risk obsolescence, and we just canGÇÖt allow that to happen to EVE or to our community... ...From all this self-reflection, a genesis of renewal has taken root, a personal and professional commitment to restore the partnership of trust upon which our success depends, and a plan that sets the foundation for us to sensibly guide EVE to her fullest potential... ...WeGÇÖve been trying to expand the EVE universe in several directions at once, and I need to do a better job of pursuing that vision without diluting or marginalizing the things that are greatGÇöor could be greatGÇöabout the game right now. Nullsec space needs to be fixed. Factional warfare needs to be fixed. The game needs new ships. We need to do a better job of nurturing our new players and making EVE the intriguing, boundless universe it has the potential to be... ...The greatest lesson for me is the realization that EVE belongs to you, and we at CCP are just the hosts of your experience... 2 years and 3 months. What has changed? Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Eternity Mistseeker Renegades of Eve Aureus Alae 3	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:15:00 - [1872] - Quote If all these LPs were exchanged for faction navy goodies then how much accompanying isk would be removed as well in those exchanges? 1000 isk per LP? So if my 1M isk bounty gives me 200 LP, i would need to give the NPC 200K isk to spend those LPs. That's a lot of isk disappearing out of the system. Would that be enough to remove the need for a 5% nerf to base bounties? How about another carrot, such as whilst an ESS is active in a system then one of its lowest class cosmic anomalies will instead respawn as one of the highest class allowed for that system and military index?
theDisto Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 15	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:17:00 - [1873] - Quote After this mornings changes, seems like an interesting concept. Just a side note- with align time and warp time, the share option is incredibly short unless you are risking warping to it in a ratting ship. In reality, taking into account time to load system, align and warp, even an Interceptor would have a hard time killing a <900k SP rookie ship parked on the beacon if they are on the ball. Simply landing on grid should make it contested until all parties choose the same choice. (or are killed) For all the nerds complaining about highsec missions with competitive isk/hr with little risk, this would go a long way to devaluing highsec LP from the major factions.
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 1192	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:23:00 - [1874] - Quote can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :) Banner was used for this Post
Xaerael Endiel GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:31:00 - [1875] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you) I approve of this idea.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 3417	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:39:00 - [1876] - Quote Xaerael Endiel wrote: Gilbaron wrote: can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you) I approve of this idea. Yes.... It is essential that accessing this device may be inhibited. Having the weapons timer inhibit someone from accessing it would go a long way making this device a viable small gang objective. Also, 20s is an extremely short access time. Most ships in game couldn't even warp to the device before the loot gets shared! It should be long enough that an on-the-ball HAC can warp 40 au's, land on grid, and stop another pilot from hitting "share all" as soon as the "Player is at the ESS" message appears in local.
Liner Xiandra Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance 267	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:43:00 - [1877] - Quote Yes, lets all earn Republic Fleet LP in Deklein, or Caldari Navy LP in Great Wildlands. That makes excellent sense. Lets keep Empire stuff in hisec/FW please.
Andrea Keuvo Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 169	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:45:00 - [1878] - Quote Xaerael Endiel wrote: Gilbaron wrote: can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you) I approve of this idea. This module shouldn't be added to the game. That said, I'm 99% sure CCP doesn't care about that customer feedback and will do it anyway so I'm pretty much resigned that the best we can do is try and get the best possible implementation of this garbage. This 100% has to happen. Even with the 3 minutes timer if I start docking as soon as a neut enters system depending on distance from the station its going to take me 2+ minutes to dock my ratting BS/carrier, reship, and undock and then add another minute + to warp to the ESS if I go in anything but an interceptor. And since these are meant to generate PvP combat should reset the timer not just stop it. Eternity Mistseeker wrote: How about another carrot, such as whilst an ESS is active in a system then one of its lowest class cosmic anomalies will instead respawn as one of the highest class allowed for that system and military index? This is the kind of carrot that might get it used in the low quality ratting systems anyway. Or maybe spawns as highest class +1 (you get a haven in systems that don't normally get a haven).
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 1196	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:51:00 - [1879] - Quote just to clarify: i want the timer to reset when combat happens :) We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :) Banner was used for this Post
Iece Quaan Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 4	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:58:00 - [1880] - Quote I think this is a poor implementation for a number of reasons. 1. No one will be able to steal anything from these modules if the system residents are on the ball. They park an alt on the ESS, and the instant reds get too close on intel, they hit Share and are done. Ratters dock up until reds are gone and reset. Oh no, we're back to 100%, guys.. 2. Deploying these offensively will do nothing, attackers will have to camp and defend it. If they can do that, they can just take the space. When the attackers are forced off, the residents blap it and start over. 3. If you make it too easy to defend and claim the bonus, it's just a 5% bonus to ISK and free LP for the residents. If you make getting the payout hard enough that people will actually need to fight over it every time, no one will use it. If it is deployed offensively, it will be destroyed and people will suck up the 95%. You will not be able to fix any of these problems by massaging the statistics on the module. The implementation of a forced penalty in order to drive use is just bad game design. There should be no penalty at all for not using it, and it should give a big bonus for successful use. You want farms and fields, then make the player farm worth the effort. Don't disturb the default PVE ( the 'hunter-gatherer' current baseline ). Make constructing the farm useful and rewarding for the player, and have it be an asset that they need to defend. Imposing arbitrary penalties to drive use on your shiny new feature just indicates that you haven't made the feature attractive enough to use. Scrap this idea and rethink it. **** reminds me of 1st edition D&D.
Inspiration 113	Posted - 2014.01.21 19:59:00 - [1881] - Quote Regan Rotineque wrote: It is still overly complicated and adds zero to the overall gameplay. Now you are adding additional mechanics to this and making it even more complex. Adding more code to a broken mechanic does not make it better. I still say this should be shelved and other game mechanics in dire need of coding and reworking be worked on. QFT As posted by several, adding layer upon layer of complexity to fix problems at the base, just adds complexity without fixing anything. Why does CCP make their own job so hard, even impossible at times? There are some that like the new design better then the old, just because of the expected personal outcomes due to tweaked risk vs reward. Some go even further and want more yet more twists to the concept in support towards their personal goals. Both groups are missing the problems and look at it too simple and short term IMO. The problem is even with changes it still doesn't make sense as with many of ills that exist in this game. Nothing has to be real life like in a game, but it does has to make sense and be believable in the context of a game. In EVE that is spaceships and advanced civilizations technologically beyond our RL experience. That doesn't mean its might and magic in space, alright? As soon as you deviate from the golden rule that it has to make sense without mind boggling twists, you get into trouble as a game designer and certainly as a programmer as you introduce escalating complexities. You might be able to come up with some weird explanation and/or code for this one new thing, but in doing so you make all future additions that connect to it even indirectly, that much harder! You have to keep escalating weirdness and re-balance and re-code more often without delivering as much entertainment as you otherwise could have. A few simple weirdness examples as a frame of reference: * Jump clones...why o why would in a world where this technology is common and facilities exist to store an unlimited amount of clones, is it not possible to store multiple clones of the same person in one station? Really, who came up this brilliant idea and how much fun has it delivered vs how much grief? * Magic siphoning units that apparently overrule all logic and gain access to stuff inside active POS shields, hell even inside reactors. Are we creating a magic game in space here? This is totally unbelievable and a dangerous path to go on. Can't you see that such a unit complicates further work on the POS system that really needs an overhaul to begin with? The timing couldn't suck more! * And the favorite of many, SOV mechanics, a completely artificial construct enforced in game by magic nothingness. It is an unbelievable system introduced it to aim for a desired result. How well did that work out? People have to spam moons with POS, even if they do nothing, just to affect the SOV system....what a fun mechanic...yay! In what sort of insane universe would that connection make any sense...hell what does SOV really mean? Are there power-ups inside the moons hidden by an ancient civilization that can bent the rules of the universe to its will? * Belt rats that are produced in staggering numbers all over EVE, seemingly on demand or based on a simple timer. Hey all of a sudden and with active farming taking place there seems to be a lot of ISK pumped into the game. Gosh...how surprising! If there would be a more economical rational and believable system in place this would never had happened in the first place! It seems CCP tries, like governments if i might add, to introduce complex rules/mechanics to "fix" problems they introduced in the previous iterations them self, in an ever ballooning spiral of absurdity. Never looking back at to what real wend wrong with the last time they "fixed" anything. I can go on about such things, there are many issues like these all over EVE, but I hope the simple message that things should be believable in the games setting resonates and sticks. If i want magic power ups for every moon i fly by, i would play another game...got it? I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
Allus Nova Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn 39	Posted - 2014.01.21 20:06:00 - [1882] - Quote Pinky Hops wrote: My take on the thing: It costs 25m. Assume 1 LP = 1300 ISK. I think this is a favorable assumption for the ESS. Assume LP gain = .19 so isk from LP = .25. assume the flat isk gain from ess is .24. The four outcomes I can see of using an ESS are: 1) Successful retrieve of ESS module with all bonus ISK. Income without ESS = .95 in wallet Income with ESS = .8 in wallet + .25 isk in lp in wallet + .24 isk in ESS = 1.29 1.29 / .95 = 1.36 income modifier vs no ESS. 2) Successful retrieve of ESS module but not the bonus ISK. This is just the ratio of isk in your wallet. So 1.05 / .95 = 1.11x 3) ESS was destroyed but you received "almost all" bonus ISK (you managed to share recently before a gang came in to destroy the ESS) This is more complicated since it is dependent on how much you have farmed. We can simply consider the difference in profit and look at the break even point to get a quick idea. This would happen about when you would have farmed 70m ISK without an ESS, or 95m value with an ESS. When this would happen would depend on how quickly rats spawned in the system and what they were worth... 4) ESS was destroyed and all bonus ISK is stolen So it is like 3) except there is no bonus ISK. The break even point becomes astronomical, around 275m isk/lp farmed before it happens. OK, the problem here is that with these LP's being injected into the system you won't be getting 1300 isk/LP with all of the increased supply. You're looking at closer to 800 isk/LP if you're lucky (it could be lower). This means that fully upgraded, you're looking at a real value of that same 1,000,000 isk rat at 960,000 or only 10k isk more than if you had risked NOTHING at all and took the straight up 5% hit. This would further drive up the ROI threshold, making this something that is never used...ever... CCPSonilover, what are you trying to accomplish here...this is a step in the right direction, but NOT a solution.
Zappity Kurved Space 776	Posted - 2014.01.21 20:07:00 - [1883] - Quote l0rd carlos wrote: Neat. I like it! Please think about a lowsec or Faction warfare ESS. For example it could take some of the LP form the FW farmers. If they are stepped and don't want to fight, they only get 80% of the original payout. But if they show up and fight they get 110% of the normal payout. Yes, please do this! It would help provoke fights with despicable farmers. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 3417	Posted - 2014.01.21 20:11:00 - [1884] - Quote Zappity wrote: l0rd carlos wrote: Neat. I like it! Please think about a lowsec or Faction warfare ESS. For example it could take some of the LP form the FW farmers. If they are stepped and don't want to fight, they only get 80% of the original payout. But if they show up and fight they get 110% of the normal payout. Yes, please do this! It would help provoke fights with despicable farmers. This could be a great anti-FW-farming alts device: Deploy in system and all FW payouts are reduced from 100% to 70% payouts. The extra 30% of the LP is stored in the ESS (+ a 10% bonus for good measure). Allow anyone to access it, but give it 5 minute access times and the option to share all or take all as well. The only downside is blue-on-blue violence is certain to increase!
Syna Anima SYNDAX CORPORATION Yulai Federation 14	Posted - 2014.01.21 20:11:00 - [1885] - Quote CCP please remove this piece of crap from the game I pay to play, you can't save bad design with band aid stats. Gÿà Join us today! Gÿà
Leigh Akiga My Highsec Backbone 504	Posted - 2014.01.21 20:13:00 - [1886] - Quote So if the LP is based upon which ESS is deployed (empire navies) how about some pirat ESS like Guristas and Angels etc. that give pirate LP
Desmond Strickler End-of-Line 247	Posted - 2014.01.21 20:14:00 - [1887] - Quote You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable. Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate). And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up The Black Prince of Wormholes-á Part-Time Moon Bear and Full-Time Black Guy "My other dread is a Swaglafar"
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 3417	Posted - 2014.01.21 20:17:00 - [1888] - Quote Desmond Strickler wrote: You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable. Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate). And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up QFT
Iece Quaan Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 4	Posted - 2014.01.21 20:23:00 - [1889] - Quote Just a few examples: Nullsec empires have found a way to backtrace concord bounty payments and gently hack the automated systems into paying out more than was intended. This will be a systemwide module that stores up an LP payout per pilot based on ISK bounty generated. Make the percentage increase over time- so the more time you spend building up a bonus, the more bonus you get. When you're ready to cash out, the 'payout time' is directly proportional to the bonus you built up. The higher the bonus, the more you get, but the longer it takes to pay out once you cash out. ( This is to prevent everyone from cashing out every 60s, which is what would happen with a fixed bonus over time ). The catch is, the module is hackable. By anyone. The would-be hacker accesses the module ( bringing up a list of accounts which they can sort by payout, which pings local in the system that the module is being accessed ). The hacker chooses which account to access, and begins the hack with their ship's equipped hacking module. Again, the larger the bonus, the longer the hack. The isk/lp is divided among the hacker's fleet upon completion. Thus, a single attacker might be able to quickly hack a few lowlevel accounts until he is forced off the module. However, a gang might be able to control the space around the module to hack out all or most of the accounts, one by one, until they are driven off by a defense fleet. This lets the individual residents gain a small benefit, but an attacker to gain a potentially large benefit, while encouraging attackers to keep their gang sizes small in order to not dilute the payout to the point of worthlessness. It would be self-regulating as hitting the module too often would encourage the locals not to keep much on account- not hitting them too often would encourage them to get lax and increase the potential payout. Blues hacking out accounts would be automatically identified by the local broadcast system and fall into their respective empire's 'ratting drama' resolution system. The module captures all bounty payments as a bonus and is sov-neutral: Reds ratting in your space could also build up a bonus, hackable by the local residents. The module is destructible, which is also a valid choice for attackers that choose merely to smash rather than make a profit. All bonuses are lost in this case. That was pretty easy and took about 15 minutes of thought.
Allus Nova Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn 39	Posted - 2014.01.21 20:23:00 - [1890] - Quote Desmond Strickler wrote: You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable. Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate). And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up OK except that you're misunderstanding that with the cost of the unit, and the pitiful increase in payout (using the fully upgraded value of 200 LP for a 1,000,000 isk mob) you'll end up with 800,000 in bounties, and 200 LP will mean that you have NO reason to use this. With any huge influx in LP like this represents, you'll really end up getting like 800 isk per LP or less, so around 160,000 isk worth of LP. Not the 260,000 that CCP is suggesting now. This means that FULLY upgraded, you're going to get 960,000 isk worth of bounty for that single mob. If you instead choose to do nothing, you're getting 950,000 with no reward. So...is 10k isk worth anything to you? CCP needs to adjust the LP reward upwards to compensate for the drop in LP value which this will result in.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.